Extra Blog to Substitute Lowest Grade

I noticed a pattern in the readings in class. I found it interesting that it is difficult to study religion or walks of life in isolation from the social/cultural context even though the focus is on the religion itself. Through its followers, religion can have an impact on the society or culture in which it exists. It may even incorporate some of its ideas or values into its own culture. The Rastas developed their own religion in response to the oppressive colonial society in which they lived. In response to oppression, their religion encouraged rebellion against that system. Likewise, Jane Addams beliefs were partially influenced by the dreadful conditions she witnessed in a part of London. Seeing the poverty, which was one of her motives, motivated her to ease unfortunate people's lives by establishing Hull House. Her belief in applying education in the real world also compelled her to start a settlement house. Hull House had social outcomes, which came from her set of beliefs (religion). These examples illustrate the idea that it is hard to explore religions without considering how society influenced or was influenced by religion.

Even Augustine recognized that society had to be taken into account when reading scripture. He provided a frame from which to view religion. For example, passages that seem irrational should be interpreted metaphorically instead because things that seem unusual now may have been considered proper then. Seeing scriptures from this perspective would clarify passages in the Psalms that seem harsh nowadays. Society changes and the interpretation of religions need to adapt to those modifications. This prevents society from clashing with religion. In the distant future, Augustine's ideas about interpretation may be useful in interpreting the religions in the present.

Hull House Neighborhood

The neighborhood around Hull House was different from how I imagined it. The maps of nationalities really shocked me. The neighborhood was not only tightly packed, but also extremely diverse. Ethnic groups were scattered everywhere; however, there were a few areas where a particular nationalities appeared to dominate. After seeing this I assumed that there probably were clashes between the ethnic groups as each has their own beliefs and customs. And in fact there were. One of the articles stated that Jews and Italians rarely inhabited the same tenement house because they look down upon one another. Living closely together with different people produced some conflicts.

Even though there were some cultural clashes, they still asserted there identity. The article talked about the Italian celebrating the Feast of Assumption and the characteristics of their religious rites. There are also several business owned by particular ethnic groups such as the Greeks and their restaurants, saloons, and groceries. People did indeed express their identity in their own ways.

People also had opportunities for social interaction. One of the images showed children playing in an alley even though it was a filthy and hazardous to their health. There were also five-cent theaters where people could watch dramas. The article also mentioned saloons. The additions to Hull House such as the gymnasium, women's club, and coffee house provided more opportunities for social interaction everyone, especially for the children. They these opportunities provided a learning environment where people could interact. I think that the social opportunities in Hull House may have motivated people to respect their differences and to assert their nationalities.

Jane Addams

I think that several factors including her experiences and beliefs motivated her to establish Hull House, but not all of them were based on religion. I remember reading about your visit to England where she encountered a lot of poverty and wretched conditions. Seeing the cruel conditions first-hand made her realize that something had to be done to ease the lives of the poor. The experience really shocked her and probably contributed to her belief that people should perform social work.

She strongly believes that people should use their higher education for social purposes. “There is nothing after disease, indigence and a sense of guilt, so fatal to health and to life itself as the want of a proper outlet for active faculties.” This statement captures how strongly she feels about taking action; that it is important for people to use their abilities to for the welfare of everyone. This belief motivated her to establish a place to help people in need.

She also mentioned that Christianity was starting to adopt humanitarian causes because helping others expresses the spirit of Christ or something around those lines. She believes that a spiritual force is necessary for the success of Settlements. However, I don't think that she applied this belief overtly to Hull House. Several changes and improvements in Hull House arose because of people started becoming interested in different activities. So many different interests developed that people began using each others specialties to for one causes, which resembles the Christian beliefs that she mentions. But she didn't mention that her her motives were based on religion. Therefore, I think that her experiences and philosophy mainly motivated her to perform social work.

Rastafarian Political Power

I think that the Rastafarian movement is strong because of its creativeness. It created trends like the dreadlocks in order to contradict conventional hairstyles of the middle and upper classes. They used reggae as a medium to express their thoughts and feelings about oppression and their neglected situation. They even created a variation of English in an effort to distinguish themselves from the broader culture.

However, just as its creativeness made it strong, it also made it vulnerable to weakness. I think that because the larger culture in Jamaica adopted some of the Rastafarian practices and customs the movement lost some of its power. People finally acknowledged that it was a culture and became familiarized with it. So familiarized they became with it that they acquired some of their traditions such as the dreadlocks and reggae music.

In my opinion, this probably caused the movement to lose some, but not all, of its political power. Politicians and the upper classes became habituated to the Rastas and no longer considered them an extreme threat to the stability of the colonial system. Although the Rastas were considered in politics and gained recognition worldwide, I still think that their political power was somewhat drained because people began using their customs for purposes that had nothing to do with rebellion. For example, the tourist video of Jamaica had some Rastafarian characteristics, but excluded their significance from a Rastafarian perspective in an effort to appeal to tourists. Its creativeness appealed to people worldwide, but its significance became obscured, causing the Rastas to lose some power.

Rasta Community Video

This community of Rastas shared some characteristics with the Rastas we discussed in class; however, they seemed somewhat different. They obviously share the beliefs with other Rastas such as equality and justice for all and goodness over evil. They also identify well with Africa and Ethiopia. They perform a ceremony several times a day. It is similar to the Rastas’ casual meetings where they smoke ganja and discuss their beliefs and current events. However, the Boboshanti didn’t smoke ganja during these meetings and they didn’t mention whether they discussed their ideas and lives; nevertheless, the meetings had similar purposes. The purposes of the meetings were to promote unity and their spirituality, which would eventually help them to gain repatriation just like the Rastas in the book. In addition, they relied on nature to survive, which agrees with the book as well.

There was also some difference I wasn't expecting. The Boboshanti observe religious days such as the seventh day Sabbath. Unlike the Rastas in the reading, the Boboshanti wrap their dreadlocks in turbans, which I think they said resemble the Ethiopians’ appearance.

In short, the book clearly describes the fundamental beliefs of the Rastas, which are summarized in the video of the Boboshanti. But I don’t think this community contradicts the book because they seem to be just a slight variation of the Rastas.

Charisma

Charisma is powerful thing because it can be used for different purposes. According to "Rastafari,"it is a quality of a personality that encompasses and appeals to the needs of the people in adverse circumstances, which helps to acquire followers for the leader and his/her cause. It reminds me of how leaders in the past have used charisma to help people. However, others such as Hitler have utilized charisma for destructive purposes.

Hitler took advantage of the economic situation, the low morale of the Germans, and the losses of Germany due to the Treaty of Versaille so that he could appeal to the Germans because they were unsatisfied with the government. Appealing to their needs, he and his political party gained popularity, advocating improvement of their current conditions. Thus, he gained support, which allowed him to gradually rise to power. From his high position, he reinforced the beliefs he imposed on the people. He influenced people to support his ideology, Nazism.

However, just as the book “Rastafari” says, some movements are only temporary. Society and culture also play a role in integrating or rejecting the movement. In Hitler’s case, other societies opposed his actions, which paved the way for his movement’s downfall. Hitler and Nazism is an example of how people can take advantage of charisma for dark purposes. The results of charisma depend on the leader's intentions.

The status of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is given status and value through Sheba’s relationship with Solomon. Sheba at first believes in a different God until Solomon imparted his wisdom onto her and she discovered who the true God was. Then Solomon impregnated Sheba because of a promise she broke. She gave birth to a male child, who would become the emperor of Ethiopia and his descendents would rule on behalf of Solomon. She converted to Christianity, and through her, she converted Ethiopia as well. Solomon even tells her that her country will be blessed through her if she genuinely worships God and follows his principles. Therefore, she established a link between her country and Israel.

The child and his descendants symbolize the eternal relationship between Israel and Ethiopia as well. Through this significant connection Ethiopia becomes even more worthy of God. It reinforces the connection between Ethiopia and Israel. From this bond between these two nations, some of Israel’s status as the people of God spread to Ethiopia, which to me explains why Ethiopia is important to Christianity.

Sheba also elevates Ethiopia’s status even more because she seemed genuinely interested in acquiring wisdom. It shows that Ethiopia values wisdom more than material wealth. Also, Sheba realized that wisdom is also necessary to rule and support her kingdom effectively. Sheba made it clear that Ethiopia truly cares about the welfare of the people through wisdom gained from God. The pursuit of wisdom and the connection between Israel and Ethiopia make it seem worthy of God.

"The Burial of Count Orgaz" by El Greco

This painting is full of symbols that reflect Catholic beliefs. There is heaven full of angels and other important figures and the Earth where people surroung the Saints who descended from heaven. On Earth, Saints Augustine and Stephen lower the Count into the sepulcher. The Virgin Mary and John the Baptist are interceding for the Count's soul. Jesus is at that the top.

The presence of the Saints demonstrate the Catholics' tendency to worship or revere saints; St. Augustine and Stephen seem to be like gaurdians. Likewise, the Virgin Mary stresses that idea even more because she seems to be interceding for the Count's soul. Therefore, people pray to her and the saints because she acts kind of like a mediator trying to save people's souls. The men dressed as Spanish conquistadores symbolizes Catholic Spain's battle against Protestant England; it helps to reinforce the Catholic beliefs expressed in the painting among the audience. Overall, this alterpiece is typical of those found in Catholic churches. Inspiring religious fervor, they are enormous and elaborate and are placed in the front of the church so that during mass people can worship the Saints or Christ or whomever who are depicted in the paintings. At the top, Christ, I'm assuming, symbolizes that he is the one that ultimately chooses to accept souls into heaven; he even has open arms, which represents that he's welcoming. This alterpiece emphasizes the importance of Saints and the Virgin Mary to the Catholics; they are just as important as Christ because they are depicted as larger than him. It shows the results of praying to them because they play an intercessory role in receiving souls in heaven, which motivates people to pray. They're beliefs influenced the artist to depict saints, the virgin, and Christ, and the saints reinforced their beliefs.

Survival of the Fittest

I think that it is highly advantageous for religions to change their interpretation of scriptures over time. The society in which it is located changes and along with it the attitudes and beliefs (although not necessarily religious) of the people. This cultural change may cause the religious and secular worlds to clash potentially causing ruptures between the people and religion. Religions could start losing their followers because they reject certain beliefs that currently prevail in the broader society.

For example, nowadays there are religions that condone homosexuality. It is also an attitude that is spreading. If more religious people begin to change their attitude toward homosexuality, then perhaps they will begin to question their church’s principles. Therefore, those religions could lose both their power and followers, who would then turn to other religions that express their newfound attitude.

It reminds me of "survival of the fittest" in terms of religion. The churches that fail to interpret their belief system according to the present state of their society put themselves at risk for extinction. The churches or religions that do derive their beliefs from a modified interpretation of scripture increase their chances of surviving. Adjusting religious beliefs to society, religions could appeal to more people, attracting more followers, which benefit its health.

St. Augustine

St. Augustine mentioned several points that people need to use in order to analyze and understandscriptures. One of the points that he mentions is to know the language(s) in which the text was written and to be well familiarized with the symbolism embedded in some terms. Certain terms have different metaphorical and hidden meanings in different languages. Using a specific language, people can identify key words used in figurative expressions, which may shed light on the idea it is trying to address. Without knowing the concepts or places the word symbolizes, the text may seem unintelligible. A snake in a passage of a text could be taken literally instead of figuratively. Zion could be interpreted as a city instead of Mount Zion (Israel).

Important metaphors or analogies could hide the true meaning of the Psalms. This point could help interpret the Psalms. In the Psalms a few passages refer to
God dominating a sea monster. I was puzzled after reading these because I assumed it referred to a shark of which people were afraid because of an accident that happened to them. But then I read the footnotes, which clarified its significance. The sea monster was an idea from canaanite religion/mythology that was incorporated into the Psalms. Without being familiar with these words that have hidden meanings, then I would not have understood those Psalms. Several of the Psalms contain metaphorical expressions, such as pit, Leviathon, lyre, etc. that would have remained mysteries if people had not studied the language and the meanings attached to them.

Psalms: God and Nature

I think that the Psalms strategically incorporate God into nature in some passages. It is a way of juxtaposing the two so that the readers can put into perspective that one is above the other in power. For example:

“His is the sea and He made it, and the dry land His hands did fashion…” 95:5

“… and He turned their rivers to blood, their currents they could not drink.” 78:44

"He blasted the Sea of Reeds, and it dried up, and He led them through the deep as through wilderness." 106:9

It makes God look like such an incredibly powerful, creative being. He created it and the earth is his possession, which he granted to humans. Especially the Psalms that illustrate how he has the ability to manipulate his creations magnifies his position in the world, which is higher than that of humans. As a result, he can inspire fear and respect in his followers, which in turn motivates them to comply with his principles. If they disobey, they will experience disasters. If they obey, they’ll experience prosperity and help as in the form of water (which is essential to life) coming from rocks.

The Psalms involving nature are similar to paintings that use hierarchic scaling. Hierarchic scaling is depicting people in an artwork a certain size which corresponds to their importance in society, to a group, or the artist himself. In the Psalms, a verbal form of hierarchic scaling is used. The Psalms depict God as an omnipotent being that controls nature resulting in fortune or chaos for humans. In a painting, God would be the dramatically larger person because he has absolute control over nature; humans would be the smaller subject in the painting because they depend on God’s will. This strategy helps people or his followers understand his power while functioning as a tool that inspires both fear and respect.

Week 4- Ethics

I see the Psalms as a reflection of the ethics God believes his followers or the people of Israel should follow. They should be honest (15). They should keep their promises and be genuinely truthful. They should not harm other people physically or verbally (15). People shouldn’t betray their friends or allies. People should be humble (37). If they commit evil deeds, then they should repent and accept their punishment (51). Breaking these morals is evil and evil creates more evil (7). In short, people should try to be innocent.

If they refuse to live like this then, then they have to face the consequences which may come in the form of illness, suffering, and other misfortunes. However, people don’t necessarily follow those morals because it is the “right” thing to do. I think that they apply the ethics to their lives out of fear. Several passages in the Psalms refer to God’s rage. The only way to avoid being harmed or even destroyed is to follow the ethics.

In addition, it is very convenient to obey these morals. God grants people protection from suffering. He also protects them from the enemies, which are people who don’t follow the ethics in the Psalms. But this convenience undermines another important moral: to “give free of charge” (37). People aren’t really living their lives selflessly because they have in mind the prosperous future that awaits them for behaving in such manners. God promises them that he will grant their desires and that they are the heirs of the Earth for following these morals. It is a livable ethic, but there is a tinge of hypocrisy caused by the fear of God and his desireable promises.

From what I know about Christianity, I think that Psalms’ ethic is very similar to it. They resemble closely the Ten Commandments. For example, “Thou Shalt not lie” is basically the same as the deceitful will stumble in the Psalms. However, the Psalms, I think are not very specific in some cases. They are more general. For instance, it says that you shouldn’t betray an allies but that isn’t very specific because there are several forms of betrayal such as lying and murder. I think that they are very much alike.

I think that the Psalms are missing something. Instead of focusing on God and how they will anger him for the wrongdoings they commit on earth, they should have focused on why it is wrong to harm others for example. The Psalms are missing the purpose of applying this ethic, which allows them to understand that people shouldn’t harm others because they have feelings as well. I’m sure people understood that but in the Psalms the emphasis was more on divine punishment.

Psalms

Despite the minor flaws in the Psalms, I enjoyed reading them so far because they reveal cultural and spiritual aspects of the historic time period in which they were written. One of the aspects that I disliked was their repetitiveness. Most of the Psalms convey the same meanings but in slightly different ways. A lot of them involve supplications; the character or narrator begs for forgiveness because of a sin they committed. Perhaps the difference among these types of Psalms is the historical context because they many of them are about different events. I was also puzzled after reading the first few because I’m not familiar with the Psalms and I was expecting them to be more positive. I was surprised that a lot of them instead referred to the wrath and fury of God toward humans. I expected them to place more emphasis on praising or glorifying God’s greatness and benevolence than on fearing him. I also found surprising that the people in the Psalms actually wish other people harm and even death; they pray to God that he eliminate them because they sinned. But then when they themselves sin, they beg for forgiveness and mercy, which I found somewhat ironic.

On the other hand, I like the Psalms because they reveal some of the cultural and spiritual characteristics of the time period in which the Psalms were written. A lot of them talk about the events taking place like warfare, plagues, and prosperity. This indicates that perhaps they lived during turbulent times. Perhaps that turbulence motivated other people to find solace in God. Also, because some of the Psalms refer to a lead person or a group, they imply that they were possibly intended for a group to setting so that they could sing or read them together. Therefore, congregations were part of their culture.

In the Psalms, you can easily see signs of spirituality. The people who wrote or read the Psalms obviously had some kind of close relationship with God. They turn to him for guidance and help in times of need. They also feel compelled to respond to him for their wrongdoings; tbey consider him so important they ask him for forgiveness. In addition, they portray notable figures from Christian history in such a way that they seem like role models. For example, David sinned and repented. His action and response could have influenced people to apply that to their spiritual lives. It seems that people then had a strong relationship with God because they placed so much trust in him because they continued obeying and respecting him even in during adversities. They did not reproach him for their plight. They Psalms indicate that to them it was important to maintain the relationship with God. This aspect makes reading the Psalms more interesting. They are not just poems, but historical events that reveal the culture and spirituality of that era.

Psalm 2

I think that the 2nd version of Psalm 2 is written better than the one in our book. The one in our book is easier to read; the organization and selection of the words gives it clarity. To me this version emphasizes the readers and humans more than the other version; the sentences end with “you” or “they/them.” For example, “Be chastened, you rulers of earth,” and “the Master derides them.” It also focuses more on fearing God instead of revering him. Moreover, it has words with multiple syllables, rendering it less powerful when spoken because you say the words not necessarily more slowly but it extends the sentences so much that it loses some of the emotion involved. It makes sound awkward as well. In addition, it lacks a pattern that could make it sound more poetic.

Although the 2nd version is harder to read, it has more emotion. Each line has about the same number of syllables, which makes it flow better when read. In addition to fear, this version includes the word reverence, which arouses respect for God. In addition, the parts of the psalm that appeal to the emotions and demonstrate the power of God are written with single syllable words. I don’t know how to explain but I just think that words with one syllable have more passion or power when spoken together. The words are spoken not quickly, but one right after the other. Therefore, to me this version of pslam 2 emphasizes the passion within it. Moreover, some of the lines end with “I will.” These words are the ones the reader will remember the most because they are at the end. Also, they are part of the main clause, which carries the most emphasis. As a result, the readers will recall the emphasis on what God promises to his loyal followers.

The colonists would interpret it almost literally. A part of the Psalm, God states, “… thou fhalt poffeff the utmoft coafts abroad.” The colonists in this time period have just arrived and are adjusting to this country that is already inhabited by the Native Americans. Reading this Psalm would comfort them that as long as they follow God, then God would give them this country. Thus, the colonists could justify the removal of the Native Americans from their land because they are not followers of God. Applying the psalm to their situation, they would probably think that the Native Americans are being disloyal to God, which means that he will unleash his rage upon them. This perspective would probably be stronger among the Puritans who strongly believe in predestination; they probably think the New World is theirs because God had already decided it. Basically, this Psalm would allow the colonists justify their actions and their claim for the New World.

Theology and Religion

Theology adds to the understanding of religion, but it is not necessary to understand it. Theology provides the followers with the underlying principles embedded within their chosen lifeway. They would understand the purposes of their rituals and other customs. For example, a person with a background in theology would see God not only as a supreme being who created the universe, but also the force that motivates the people to abide by his principles.

Moreover, theologists can make a connection between religion and the larger society. With such knowledge, they would be able to see the direct and indirect effects of religion. For instance, people familiar with theology could say that certain religions dissuade its followers from rebelling in the political arena because there religion endorses its followers to conform to the status quo. In short, they would probably view religion as an institution connected to the larger society.

Although theology broadens one's perspective, I don't think that an understanding of theology is required to understand religion. I'm sure that thousands of people worldwide can comprehend and practice their own religions without knowing any of the concepts and terminology of theology. Theology is knowledge whereas religion is knowledge blended with faith in beliefs that explain one's existance. It's similar to the position of any human within a culture. They do not need to understand anthropology to understand that they have traditions, customs, and beliefs that serve specific purposes. Religion also evokes strong feelings that motivate people to continue devoting their lives to it. Thus, comprehension of religion does not depend on understanding theology.

Week #2

The animal shaped mounds found in Wisconsin differ greatly from the animal paintings in the Lascaux caves. The animal paintings and carvings in the Lascaux caves do not seem to symbolize much of their religion, if they had one. Very few ideas can be inferred from them. All that is evident from them is that perhaps these were the animals they encountered in their daily lives. They could also have been the animals that endangered their existence as is depicted in the drawing of the bull attacking the stick man. They could also have been or the animals they hunted in order to survive. A possible function for them was probably to pass on stories of what happened to some of the members of that group of people. It is impossible to conclude that these drawings had any spiritual meanings however. Perhaps they only show a glimpse of their culture, which revolved around animals since they probably relied on them in order to survive.

In contrast, the animal shaped mounds are symbolic of the culture of the Native Americans. Different mounds represent the upperworld (sky), the earth (lowerworld), and water (lowerworld), each corresponding to different animal shaped mounds. This shows that they had some kind of religion and culture. For example, they believed that harmony with nature was important. Therefore, they where there were bird mounds, there were a few panthers, representing the lower world. They also had beliefs associated with the different animal shaped mounds. The water spirits, for instance, lived in the water, capable of harming but also blessing only if they offered it something. In addition, because different animals represented certain clans, they felt motivated to maintain some kind of balance as well since they represented opposing animals (i.e. bird and lizard). Thus, their mounds (symbols) provided them with an explanation for life that motivated (moods and motivations) them to apply their beliefs to their lives by performing certain acts (religious behaviors). They have meanings unlike the animal paintings in the caves of Lauscaux.

The animals associated with sports team are very different from the animal paintings in the caves and the animal shaped mounds. In sports, they serve as symbols that represent a particular team similar to how one animal represented a tribe. Neither the public nor the teams worship them. Although they serve no spiritual purpose, they may motivate their region to support them since sports involves competition. However, some people may express intense zeal toward their favorite team. Unlike the mounds, they do not provide an explanation for their existence. Sports symbols and animal shaped mounds served different purposes and had different meanings.

The Grizzly Man

The Grizzly man failed at his mission in life because his beliefs about bears were inaccurate. He believed that bears are harmless creatures that are misunderstood. As a result, he began promoting awareness of this issue. Although it is a noble cause, he crossed the boundary between humans and animals.

There were several flaws in his way of promoting awareness. Crossing the boundary put the bears at risk. If they became habituated to humans, they would begin to approach them more, exposing humans and themselves to danger. In addition, he treated the bears as though they were domesticated animals that could understand human emotions. His behavior communicated to the viewers and children whom he lectured that it is not dangerous to approach and pet a bear. He probably did not consider the fact that bears have less advanced cognitive abilities and have instincts that could put humans at risk. He probably did not understand that bears have dramatically different ways of life than humans; therefore, it is impossible to adapt to their lifestyle in order to prove his point. Finally, his death undermined his efforts; it supported the idea that bears can be life-threatening.

Definition of Religion

Religion is a way of life, guiding its followers with meanings embedded in historic texts, or important abstract ideas or insignia. These meanings tend to give people a purpose in life, which motivates them to abide by certain set of ethical or behavioral standards. Because it shapes their life, people experience it in different ways. In general, their worship and actions lead the followers to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal of their way of life.

I agree with Clifford Geertz’s definition of religion because it is broad, encompassing the characteristics of all religions. It includes the characteristics religions have in common. For example, they all worship different symbols, which carry different meanings. Because it is broad, it does not discriminate between religions; it does not say that some religions are right or wrong; or good or bad. In other words, it is unbiased, eliminating discrimination. As a result, it can be used to evaluate every religion.

I also agree with fact that he excluded the idea of blind faith. I think that blind faith means believing in something without having tangible evidence that proves it exists. Not all people have blind faith in their religions. For example, the Protestants in Weber's book did not always of have faith that they were among the selected. Because of their uncertainty, they felt motivated to find an indicator of their status. To them, wealth became the sign of grace or salvation. They resorted to finding something tangible to prove the faith they had in salvation. Therefore, they did not have blind faith in that aspect of their religion.